Submit your Article

Over the past five years, the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA), under the leadership of Prem Kumar Rai, has sought to make the commission more proactive in controlling corruption and promoting good governance. Under Rai’s leadership, the CIAA has taken strong action against irregularities and corruption in public land, information technology, healthcare, and aviation sectors. In a special interview with Balkrishna Basnet and Surendra Kafle of Annapurna Post, the sister publication of The Annapurna Express, Rai, who rarely speaks to the media, shared his views. You have completed five years leading the CIAA. Which areas did you focus on during this period? There is widespread embezzlement and misuse of government and public land across the country. In many places, such land has been registered in individuals’ names. From the outset, I said my first priority would be to bring such land back under government ownership. Second, at the policy level, I focused on reforming the Prevention of Corruption Act and the CIAA Act. These laws had become outdated and required amendments. At that time, sting operations had also been halted. From the beginning of my tenure, I made it clear that policy reform would be a key priority. Third, public perception of the CIAA had become increasingly negative. I committed to restoring the institution’s credibility. These were the three main priorities I pledged to pursue. When I first studied the condition of the CIAA, I found that digitalization had not been implemented. Immediately after assuming office, I prioritized digitalizing the entire system—from complaint registration to detailed investigation processes. This has made it easier to assess governance status and identify urgent actions. What kinds of land-related cases emerged? What trends did you observe? We are extremely weak in maintaining land records. Proper digitization has not been completed. It was found that even responsible agencies, such as District Administration Offices, local governments, and the Ministry of Land, had failed to adequately protect government and public land. After the Land Act of 1964, a decision was made to bring land exceeding the legal ceiling—held by Rana elites, Shah rulers, and wealthy landlords—under government ownership. The CIAA has repeatedly written to the Ministry of Land Management to implement this decision. However, even after decades, excess land has not been reclaimed. This is a major institutional weakness. Even after 50 years, such land continues to be misused. This reflects a failure on the part of the Government of Nepal. In Kathmandu Valley alone, one individual still holds more than 4,000 ropanis of land. There are many similar cases. It is said that the information technology sector is even more chaotic. Is that true? Yes, the IT sector was deeply problematic. Serious irregularities were found in the purchase, installation, and operation of software and related systems. After we assumed office, the CIAA began investigating this sector in depth for the first time. Previously, there was limited understanding of IT within the institution. Complaints were filed, but even investigators struggled to fully grasp technical aspects. Because IT is complex and constantly evolving, officials often accepted suppliers’ claims without sufficient scrutiny. Procurement in the IT sector proved highly risky. Determining the actual value of software was difficult. Prices could be arbitrarily inflated, specifications manipulated, and verifying compliance required additional IT expertise. A small group monopolized the sector. Since only a limited number of experts understood the systems, they exploited this knowledge gap. In projects such as the Teramocs system, Security Press, Government Integrated Data Center (GIDC), and telecom billing systems, prices were massively inflated. For example, equipment worth Rs 10m was sometimes priced at Rs 250m to accommodate commissions. Besides land and IT, which other sectors showed irregularities? Healthcare was another major sector. Procurement of medical equipment had long gone unchecked. Investigations revealed monopolies by a few agents. Once we filed some cases, complaints began to increase significantly. In one instance, we spent three months in Madhesh Province, visiting municipalities and rural municipalities. We discovered collusion in drafting technical specifications tailored to specific companies. In some cases, specifications were written for one product, but cheaper alternatives were supplied instead. This was a common method of corruption. Like IT procurement, medical equipment procurement also involved serious irregularities. It is also said that excessive equipment is purchased but left unused. What did you find? Yes, this is another serious distortion. Both IT and medical equipment were often purchased beyond actual needs and left unused. By the time they were utilized, they had already become outdated. There are many examples of equipment being purchased merely to exhaust budgets. In some cases, staff lacked the skills to operate the machines. In Madhes Province and other areas, equipment supplied by provincial authorities and the Department of Health Services was simply stored without use. In places lacking manpower and infrastructure, unnecessary equipment was procured, creating opportunities for corruption. For example, while villages required basic blood-testing facilities, equipment capable of conducting 20 different tests was supplied unnecessarily. During the Covid-19 period, large quantities of equipment were purchased and later left unused, turning health facilities into storage warehouses. How is the CIAA dealing with the alleged irregularities in the aviation sector? We have only recently begun investigating airport construction. There appears to be misuse of budgets in this sector, with greater emphasis on spending allocated funds than on assessing actual needs. Airports are being built larger than necessary, with excessive and unjustified expenses. For instance, Nepalgunj Airport, which was constructed at a cost of Rs 4bn, reportedly includes a shopping center, which may not be viable. Similar concerns have been observed at Bharatpur and Biratnagar airports. We are studying these issues and preparing further cases. We have already examined the case pertaining to Pokhara International Airport. The Public Accounts Committee also reviewed it and shared its report with us, which supported our investigation. A case has already been filed. As for Bhairahawa International Airport, which was built with a loan from the Asian Development Bank, it is struggling even to repay interest. Despite this, additional infrastructure such as taxiways is still being constructed, and there are also discussions about building Terminal-2. Such activities are cause for concern. Airports should only be constructed after thorough feasibility studies, as well as assessment of flight demand, potential returns, public benefit, and air route agreements. The same principle applies to proposed projects such as Nijgadh International Airport. What kinds of threats do you face as chief commissioner? In this position, I have simply fulfilled my constitutional responsibility. The commissioners and I act strictly within the authority granted by the Constitution. We do not act with bias or favoritism. Decisions are based on investigative findings. Naturally, once cases are filed, not everyone will be pleased. In such roles, there are often more adversaries than allies. While direct threats are rare, indirect pressures do occur. Some individuals distance themselves after cases are filed. How easy has it been to maintain good governance and control corruption? Many people speak about corruption, but when asked to submit formal written complaints, they hesitate. Maintaining good governance and controlling corruption is challenging and requires collective effort. There is a misconception that corruption control is solely the CIAA’s responsibility. Many complaints fall outside our jurisdiction, such as assault, fraud, marital disputes, and inheritance conflicts. Each year, around 37,000 complaints are registered, and most do not concern corruption. The CIAA handles only corruption cases. Recently, we have also been granted authority over money laundering cases, and three such cases have been filed. The CIAA is not the only body responsible for controlling corruption. It is essentially the final resort and primarily a prosecutorial body. Nepal has federal, provincial, and local governments, and their responsibility is to prevent corruption at their respective levels. If they properly enforce laws and maintain accountability, the CIAA’s role would be minimal. The belief that the CIAA alone can control corruption is misguided. There are widespread claims of corruption at provincial and local levels, aren’t there? Yes, approximately 50 percent of corruption occurs at the local level. Development projects are sometimes effectively “sold” at provincial and local levels. There is widespread misuse of consumer committees in local governments. Unnecessary staff recruitment and excessive procurement have increased recurrent expenditure. There is a prevailing mindset that “anything can be done.” Despite the CIAA’s efforts, this tendency has not fundamentally changed. The core issue is that our society appears to have normalized corruption. Our presence creates some deterrence, but without the CIAA’s interventions, Nepal might already have faced international blacklisting. Unless society becomes more aware and proactive, controlling corruption will remain difficult. No one should assume they can escape accountability. Why is there dissatisfaction toward the CIAA? Intermediaries or middlemen often play a role in attacks against the CIAA. When such actors influence state operations, they also attempt to influence the commission. Past controversies have also affected the institution’s image. The CIAA must continue to demonstrate impartiality and independence. There is a tendency among some individuals to seek protection for themselves while demanding strict action against others. Such attitudes undermine good governance and make corruption control more difficult.